To think that a marriage tax break is stupid and David Cameron is a smug twat

[ReallyTired]

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-24309634

I disagree with financially rewarding people to get married. Marriage is not a pancera to all of society's ills and some marriages are desperately unhappy. Being happily married is down to luck rather than crap like.

""The values of marriage are give and take, support and sacrifice; values that we need more of in this country.""

A marriage is made up of two people and sadly its sometimes the case that one of them is a total twat. Why should the person who isn't a twat be penalised for getting a much needed divorce? I feel that the government should respect the fact that some people don't want to get married and they and their children are perfectly happy the way they are!

I see no reason why this allowance should be given to a childless person just because they are married. I feel it would be better to plough the money into tax credits.

You know what really pisses me off? All this talk of morality and family values and on one hand whist simultaneously shitting on the poorest and most vulnerable from a great height because it's the 'right' thing to do. They try and look so upstanding giving crappy little speeches about what is 'right' and 'moral' then they sell arms to despots and try and punitively bomb Syria and tell people with CP that they are scroungers. A man set fire to a job centre the other day because he hadn't eaten for 3 days. Half a million people are dependent on charity to eat. Some food banks are now rejecting the 'underserving poor' but the deserving married will have £700 million pounds spent on them for being 'good'. It's a pat on the fucking head.

Maybe Dave (would you buy a used car from him?) wants to get commitment-phobic men to be more willing to get married? You know, all those threads we see from women who want to marry men who want to cohabit?

Or he's been arguing on the internet about whether there's any difference in the legal rights for a married couple and a cohabiting couple. And he lost the thread, so now he's proposing this so that he can win his internet arguments in future.

What stravy said. It's the politics of divide and conquer.

Good point and let's not forget staying in a long term relationship (of which I'm in) has a huge amount of luck involved which I acknowledge and which smug Dave is forgetting.

In the old days people had to stay together in a marriage regardless of whether they had the good luck to find the right partner or whether it was right for them or their children.

It would do far more good and reach more people if the money was spent on educating kids in relationships.

......... I wonder how they feel about widows ? This is absolutely ridiculous.

But this doesn't help most married people anyway- don't most married people both work, at least part-time?

I think calling this a marriage tax break is odd as most married couples won't benefit at all- and there aren't that many couples around who aren't married who are both basic rate taxpayers where one doesn't work?!

I don't think it's the Tories laughing at people.

I think it's that they have introduced policies to try and help parents who both work - increased help for childcare costs.

They have taken away child benefit from couples where one parent earns a large amount, regardless of what the other parent earns and this is a kind of sop to that.

I agree it's not much. And in these tough times though I miss my child benefit loads, or will do when I give it back in January, I don't need it like some people need it.

I suppose this is the thinking that my husbands salary pays for two people plus children. If he and I both worked and he worked fewer hours to provide half the childcare then we would have a higher tax free allowance as it would be both mine and his and we would also potentially still be eligible for child benefit.

As it is we have one tax free allowance, are not eligible for child benefit and his salary stretches to provide for all of us. I don't see what wrong with being able to share our tax free allowance, or with the Tories suggesting it.

I don't think, however, that this is much and I also think this money could be better spent elsewhere but to me it really doesn't seem a twisted, evil, keep-the-woman-in-the-kitchen policy.

People shouldn't get or stay married because of financial incentives. Crazy, stupid, misguided policies of the emotionally illiterate.

Mumsy it doesn't help us either.

We're not married,have lost our CB even though those on more are keeping it,don't need childcare and have ks2 kids soooooo what help exactly Dave are we getting as a squeezed family?

Ahhhhhh we're not the type you want to help- thanks.

It's just to buy Tory votes and to keep their backbenchers happy.Let's face it even for those getting it it's sfa but collectively it's a large amount to waste.

So as a country we have money to fritter on their party but our libraries can get closed and children an worry about being evicted.

It's a ploy to win back the Daily Mail readers. Tradition, nostalgia, some kind of moral highground. YANBU OP on either count.

Nothing like a bit of frothing on a Saturday morning. Do people really make decisions based on what benefits they might get?

Its going to cost a ridiculous amount to administer.
The tax office can barely get their head around people changing jobs or getting a company car mid tax year with introducing people getting married/divorced/having children etc into the mix.

YABU.

I understand that it will provide a financial break for SAHMs and SAHDs. You only have to read on here to see how SAHPs thought they were being penalised wrt the free childcare and other provisions that were introduced recently. This, presumably, is to counter that.

Unfortunately DAvid Cameron can't win whatever he does.

My family will benefit from these new provisions. We don't use paid childcare at the moment so we didn't benefit from earlier measures.

If someone isn't married and doesn't benefit then it's not the end of the world. It's only £200 after all. It wouldn't make me stay in a marriage and it wouldn't make me get married either so those suggestions are silly.

Sooooo a complete,utter waste of money then.

So why not give £200 to SAHMs and SAHDs regardless of who they are having sex with rather than married 60 year olds whose childcare responsibilities ended 20 years ago?

Don't be so ridiculous.

Clearly they do.

They're rewarding people who are married and giving them a pat on the head.

Those not married get nothing.

Yabu, children and society need stable families. Yes married couples divorce but statistics do show that couples who are married before they have their dc are less likely to split up.

It's a paltry amount so hardly worth having. It works out at about £3.75 a week. It won't affect higher rate tax payers and won't help people who have lost their child benefit. And I don't think it should be per household.

Being married doesn't mean you're not sleeping around,arguing or parenting well.

They do not like you if you are a sahp either.